tv Hardball With Chris Matthews MSNBC November 18, 2010 3:00am-4:00am EST
for what? for what? >> just add a few things to their anger. isaac yeffef, thank you kindly for your time tonight. it's been an education. >> thank you very much. >> that's november 17th, 15 days since republicans took control of the house. mr. boehner, where are the jobs? i'm keith olbermann, good night and good luck. >> meet the new boss, same as the old boss, let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm michael in for chris matthews and leading off tonight, no change. house democrats took a historic hit on election day. independents abandoned them, moderate blue dogs crushed. republicans readying to take control. how do the democrats show they heard.
how do they prove willing to change. keeping the same leadership that presided over their defeat. nancy pelosi and her top lieutenants hold on to their jobs despite challenges. tonight we'll talk to one of those leaders who keeping his job and a moderate democrat who has been a pelosi critic. consenator-elect richard blumenthal one of the few who beat back the republican tide. i'll ask thim what he's going to do to help his party regain voter confidence and fix the economy. can you believe republicans actually rebuffed president obama's white house invite for tomorrow. will this play into the president's hands. also, more than 80% of americans support the use of those new airport body scanners so is that enough to quell calls by privacy rights advocates to boycott the scanners on the day before thanksgiving. passenger who is object to all enhanced screenings will not get on the plane and he will be here tonight. let me finish with thoughts
about homework. we start with the democratic leadership, same as it ever was. congressman john larson of connecticut is the democratic caucus chair, congratulations maintaining that position. there is a perspective you heard from others that says you didn't get the message. more than 60 lost their seats and it's the same face for the leadership of democrats. how do you respond? >> no, we did get the message. it was a heart felt message. we heard in more than five hours yesterday from our members including members that won't be joining us in the 112th congress, michael. it's about jobs, it's about the economy. we get it. and certainly while it was a historic caucus, we didn't get enough done on behalf of people. we had a roosevelt moment and we responded in many respects like hoover. we know we have a lot more to do, we hope that we can work with the republicans now instead of saying no, they have an opportunity to come forward and create jobs.
we will join with them in that. we understand this is about the american people. and when you're out of work and you don't have employment, times are tough. they're tough but we're committed to respond in a way that will be helpful to the american people and put them back to work. >> congressman, there is a temptation to think this is a lot of inside baseball. but i offer you the perspective of a radio host who sits in a studio and hears commercial after commercial in that last cycle on radio stations across the country, where speaker pelosi was the face, speaker pelosi was the voice, that republicans very effectively used in a successful campaign. so, you know, to that person's perspective, you kept her in position, albeit not as the speaker. >> i think anyone who is demonized with more than $75 million ratings are going to be low. what i would say to the american people, and certainly what our caucus had to say we understand her heart and we understand her will.
we understand her effectiveness. that's why she was demonized. and frankly, what this is about at the end of the day isn't about nancy pelosi or john larson or any of our leadership thcht is about the american people and working on their behalf. so that's what the caucus came together around. and everybody had an opportunity to speak. i am so proud of the camaraderie and the feelings that were emanating from our caucus. it was actually uplifting and a very difficult two days. >> take me if you would, sir, inside that caucus and paint the picture for me. what did the speaker have to say? >> what the speaker -- what's important is what the members had the say. what the members had to say about her. and about her effectiveness and their districts and about their willingness to run again. and how we had to keep the faith. also members in striking kanlder were talking about how kiflt it was to be associated with her and to be branded that way. what people talked about was the
citizens united decisions and what happened with the disclose act, members stood up and said we shouldn't pass anything from the senate until they wake up and pass the disclose act so that all of the dirty money that's gone into soiling not only the good name of nancy pelosi but all of these races across the country, we have to wake up to that. i thank people on msnbc who get it and talk about it as opposed to as you pointed out to a lot of the stations around the country that don't. >> regardless how we got here, one wonders if you did a favre tear the president today because it now sets the stage for 2012 presumably he's running for re-election. you can see those images and hear those commercials. >> well, i think again, it's going to be about jobs and about the economy. and certainly i think the president understands this and i said before we have a roosevelt moment. there has to be more fireside chats connecting with the people. we have to have the ability to do that. we have an articulate young president who is very capable of
doing that. we look forward to working with him to achieve those goals. we're certainly bound and determined to focus on jobs in this economy. our slogan continues to be make it in america so every american can make it. >> was an interesting analysis at politico today that suggested that among the reasons why the speaker maintained her leadership position within the democratic party was to hold the white house in check, that she would be a progressive check on a president's temptation. this president's temptation to gravitate to the middle. does that make sense to you as someone who was supportive of her? >> well, certainly you know, it's important that congress as a body be an important check on the executive branch. we look forward to working with this administration. certainly nancy demonstrated she can do that. but she is, i think that's a good analysis, she is an important check not only on the president but on the senate as
well. i think you're going to see a more determined house come around in terms of our relationship with the senate, and our ability to work with the executive branch and she certainly does represent that, but more importantly, we know how to work together with people. we're willing to reach across the aisle to the republicans. they have got a difficult task in front of us. we have to put aside differences of democrat and republican and work towards putting america back to work. that's what our charge is. we will not turn back the clock, we will stick with our principles, not allow the privatization of social security and the vouchering of medicare and fight for american jobs. that's as we see our goals, we won't turn back the clock again on wall street reforms either. that's what we stand for. that's why i'm proud to be a democrat. >> you mention working across the aisle. i think it doesn't bode well for the country if dinner invitation extended by the president is snubbed. that's what it appears to be from all accounts for tomorrow
night. is that a sign of what's to come? >> i think the republicans are in disarray, having a battle in their own caucus in terms about who is controlling their caucus, is it the tea party? i heard john mccain today questioning the tea party and their influence within the senate and within the house as well. so, they're going to be going through struggles as well. i think the important thing is to focus on jobs. we demonstrated in our caucus that we can work together. dan boren who you are going to hear from next, worked together with a guy like t. boone pickens to put america's energy system back together in support of the natural gas act, create the kind of jobs that we need here in this country and put america back to work. that's what we've got to do. that's what our caucus is focused on. >> you made reference to congressman born. does this spell the death nell politically speaking of blue dog democrats the result of this vote? is there a place for them in
your party? >> there is a big den in our party and a huge spot for the blue dogs. they were articulate, they did a great job, both yesterday in our five-hour long caucus, and today in our organizational meeting. and the important thing in our caucus is that we can sit down and reason together. even where we disagree and we're not always going to have agreement, that's why we have such a huge tent. but what we know is we can work together toward a common goal. a common goal we share is jobs. >> thank you very much. we're going to talk to dan born in a moment. first take a listen to congressman marcie capter last week on "hardball." >> i was going to say if i might mention i look forward to alliances with some of the tea party republicans that have been elected. when nafta passed in 1993 we had a 12-vote margin that would have made the difference. look at the terrible hemorrhage of jobs that occurred because of that. i'll tell you i think that
there's a real democratic tea party republican alliance to be born in this new congress. if it doesn't happen the people who don't support jobs in this country won't be re-elected two years from now. >> and the suggestion of congresswoman's comments the reason i wanted you to hear that, she expresses a willingness to work with the tea party. i wonder if congressman dan born feels the same. congressman, i know you heard the tail end of that. what's your willingness to reach across the aisle and work with tea party elected candidates? >> i'm willing to work with anybody. anybody that wants to bring this country together to solve problems. i think the electorate said they are tired of the partisanship, they want people who are going to work for common sense solutions to bring this economy back. we're so tired of the polarization. i don't care who it is. whether the republicans, democrats, blue dogs, independents, you know, progressives, whatever the stripe. we've got to set these differences aside and frankly, today we had a big leadership
election, and some of us on the more conservative side of the democratic caucus were disappointed. but the focus is going away from the congress and to the president. >> you had said, sir, you intended to vote against the speaker and her leadership capacity. did you indeed cast that ballot? >> i did. i voted for heath shuler of north carolina, a more conservative democrat. i will vote on the floor for a more conservative democrat than nancy pelosi. >> let me ask you, from the outside looking in here is a party that got drubbed in the election, lost more than 60 seats and holds on to the same leadership. it seems as if the party is tone deaf. >> i agree with you. the problem is we only had 43 votes. i think most americans would agree there needed to be changes but unfortunately, they didn't have those votes. there were over -- there are 150 democrats who voted to stay with the same leadership. but what i'm going to try to do
is move forward, see if the president, frankly again, back to the president. he's got to move to the middle. he is way off on the left flank, frankly i can tell you from oklahoma he is. he's got to get to the middle. is he going to be bill clinton or jimmy carter? is he going to be a one-term president or two-term president? >> would you go so far as to say it was selfish for those who maintained leadership positions not to stand down? >> well, i was very public. i thought that we needed a new direction, we needed new leadership. but you know, the elections are over with. i tried my darnedest. i've been speaking out all over not only in oklahoma but across the country and washington, d.c. and unfortunately my caucus did not listen. but you know, what do we do now? that's the thing. the leadership election was lost, now what do we do? i think it's up to the president. the president as the big podium, not necessarily the minority
leader. >> do you interpret speaker pelosi's success today as progressives saying we need her here to hold him, the president, in check so he doesn't drift toward the middle? >> well, they did say that. but that's why it's so important to see what the president's reaction is going to be. is he going to extend the tax cuts which i support, we cannot raise taxes in the middle of a recession. we've got to work with the business community. people are not talking about that. democrats need to work with the business community. barack obama needs to work with the business community. the people through create jobs in this country. >> congressman dan boren, thanks for your time. meet richard blumenthal beat linda mcmahon. he will tell us what he's planning to do once he takes his seat. >> it's official in alaska. nbc news is projecting that lisa mom, i want to drive.
it'll cost a fortune to insure you. nationwide insurance, we need a freeze-frame here. let's give parents a break, right ? let the discounts they've earned be passed down to their teens. save mom and dad up to 25% versus the competition. we'll call it the nationwide family plan. here you go, and there you go. unfreeze ! keys ! savings ! ♪ nationwide is on your side ♪ road trip ! >> it's official in alaska.
nbc news is projecting that lisa murkowski is the apparent winner in the alaska senate race, won as a write-in candidate. after two weeks she has a lead of about 10,000 votes with only a few hundred left to count. that makes murkowski the first to win a write-in since strom thurmond in 1954. "hardball" back after this. you go next if you had a
welcome back to "hardball." all this week on "hardball" we're meeting new members of the house and senate. richard blumenthal is connecticut's attorney general defeated linda mcmahon by 12 points. senator, full disclosure i once predicted you wouldn't survive that flap over your military record. congratulations, you did so. >> thank you. a decisive victory. i'm glad to have won after being outspent 7 to 1.
but i'm here because people connect and know me, know my record. that may not have always been as apparent to folks who didn't live here and perhaps the national press as well. >> earmarks. senators mccaskill and udahl say ban them. >> i say at a minimum, we should end the secret earmarks that have so bedeviled the process and undermined confidence. there should be a rational process if there are designated spending for any state or district. but you know, earmarks are really only a tiny part of the deficit and debt problem, less than a fraction of 1% and i'm much more concerned about the major opportunities for cutting spending and getting serious about reducing our national debt and i made very specific professionals how to do it. >> how would you treat the upper 2% income earner getting so much attention in this conversation? >> i believe there ought to be an extension of tax cuts for the middle class.
i have opposed extending the bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%, the idea that somehow those tax breaks benefit small businesses i think is a complete ruse. but i stress i am strongly in support of tax relief for small businesses. priority number one has to be aid for those small businesses in the form of more capital, and more secure deductions or tax credits for small businesses that are the major source of job creation in this country, more than 70% of all new jobs. we need more infrastructure investment. getting america back to work putting america back on track in connecticut fighting for those people who are out of work and small businesses that need that kind of tax relief and capital because the banks aren't making loans has to be prioritity one. >> speaking of your home state of connecticut where you remain the attorney general. i would be remiss if i didn't ask for a comment on the horrific set of circumstances in the home invasion case that captivated much of the nation.
you agree with me that the death penalty is warranted and for number two should he be convicted as well? >> absolutely. if the death penalty is warranted in any case, and i support the death penalty in cases of heinous and horrific crime, certainly this one is absolutely a poster person for it. both hayes and his co-defendant deserve the death penalty. >> and dr. petit a rock, a steel-willed individual unlike any i have paid attention to in the past. >> you know, i think he has provided inspiration not only for his immediate family and for people who know him but really for the entire state, maybe for others outside the state of connecticut, not only in his courage and dedication and his perseverance, coming to court every day, staying with the process that unfortunately as
some criminal justice cases illustrate and i say this as a former united states attorney as well as now attorney general, sometimes fails to move as quickly as it should. >> another issue that's been on your agenda as attorney general that you'll deal with in the united states senate, health insurance. i know if not today perhaps yesterday, can you give us the cliff notes version. >> i was in the insurance commission hearings today opposing a 20% rate increase request, completely unjustified, i have fought anthem and other insurance companies in their rate increase requests, year after year, last year anthem received a 20-plus percent increase. recently a 30 to 50% increase. now it want as 20% increase on some of its plans. and i have also fought, by the way, insurance companies when they failed to cover people under policies using excuses like pre-existing conditions, and the doctor's out of network,
the treatment is experimental. my experience leads me to believe we can't go back to a time when insurance companies made the rules and ran the show which is why i want these protections for consumers, improve the health care bill by cutting costs but not repeal it. >> i wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of a 20% increase but why can't the market solve that? why does it require government intervention? >> because the market is not as competitive as it should be. as you know, the antitrust laws fail to provide the kind of protection in this industry that they might in others, and the free market fails to operate in the way it should. which is why there has to be stronger regulation or scrutiny at least, oversight and scrutiny scrutiny. i see it in connecticut where there is no right to a hearing, no right to appeal.
and consumers deserve better protection. >> senator, i'm a fill-in guy. help me make news. are you for lieberman in 2012? >> i'm not going to make news for you there. we have just finished literally a little more than two weeks ago an election and i think folks are pretty well tired of elections, campaigning, and i'm going to let that one go. >> thank you, i had to try. thank you attorney general blumenthal, the in-coming senator from connecticut. up next now that he's broken ground what is president bush planning to do with this infamous banner. the side show is straight ahead. [ female announcer ] how well did total effects body wash shape up for good housekeeping?
under way for president bush's library, what to do with that mission accomplished banner. you remember it that hung on the uss abraham lincoln. that was may 1, 2003. now the banner is in storage and will become part of the library's collection. whether and how it's displayed is to be decided. if the decider has his way, i think we know what he'd prefer. >> no question it's a mistake. >> one of those times your words were used against you over and over again. >> and that happens when you're president. and if i had to do it over again which you don't get to do when you're the president, i'd have said good going, men and women. great mission. >> sounds like it might stay in storage for a while. remember the florida pastor who threatened to burn the koran. now he says his anti-muslim zeal cost him his congregation. yesterday as he visited ground
zero he told reporters they left because, quote, they are not interested in the truth. well, flock or no flock, the pastor keeps on going. he's got a facebook page for his new effort, stand up america, an organization he says will teach about the dangers of radical islam. for the book burning pastor jones told a reporter no plans to burn the koran but may call for international judge the koran day, a way to build a congregation, i imagine. could jim morrison get justice. charlie crist will submit his name to the clemency board. he was charged with indecent exposure in a concert in miami. the governor says he's reviewed the evidence and quote we don't really know if the alleged act occurred. morrison was appealing the conviction when he died two years later. imagine if kris had done this before the election a coalition of baby boomer door fans might have sent him to the senate.
finally tonight's big number involves a beverage nicknamed blackout in a can. today the fda moved to clamp down on the drinks which combine alcohol and caffeine, sending warning letsers to four companies that make them. one of the most popular equal to three beers and a tall cup of coffee is called four loko. that's the big numberment president obama invited republican leaders to the white house tomorrow. the republicans snubbed him. what does that tell you how things will go in washington for the next two years.
welcome back to "hardball." republicans indicated how they intend to deal with president obama when they rebuffed his post-election invite to the white house schedule scheduled for tomorrow t. president billed the summit as a necessary first step in the reconciliation for both sides. will the snub give him the upper hand. eugene robinson is a "washington post" columnist and political analyst. richard wolf is the author of a book called "revival, the struggle for survival inside the obama white house." gene, what a sad day if because of the optics an overture from the president to the incoming class and leadership is cancelled, snubbed. use what word choice you see fit. >> it's pretty amazing. i think it is -- it does certainly make the president appear to be taking the high road. he invited them, he's the president of the united states, to turn down that invitation or
postpone that from the president doesn't really look good. one can understand, remember the last time there was a kind of public encounter between the president and the republican caucus, it didn't go that well for the republicans. >> you talking about baltimore? >> up in baltimore, that's right. and you can -- one can understand the republicans wanting to kind of have their act together, get on the same page about how they are going to go into this new phase. before doing that. nonetheless, it's the president of the united states. when he invites you to the white house, it's protocol to go. >> i don't understand how the optics are for or against one or the other side if the invitation is come and break bread in the presidential quarters of the white house. >> you're right. people are paying attention right now. you know, the republicans need to learn the lesson from recent history which is that when obama came in to power, and he started
just dealing with democrats it backfired. you cannot go out there if you think you're winning elections because of independent votes, you can't go out and deal with your own side and play to your own base. if republicans are going down that track the they draw that conclusion they aren't going to find enough votes when it comes to 2012. they need to hold on to independent voters and obama needs to pull them back. an outstretched hand is what independents want. they shouldn't spurn it. >> richard, allow me to tap into some of that inside knowledge in evidence in your book "revival." how do you think it plays that nancy pelosi maintained her leadership position. i'm saying he's incomes in 2012, and he will be saddled now with her role. i can tell you it was used effectively throughout the country. i referenced earlier having heard up teen radio commercials across the country where it was nancy pelosi, the face of the democratic party. >> well, to put it mildly they
are conflicted about this. as i recount in "revival" they had an extremely difficult set of negotiations with nancy pelosi. the president told me he enjoyed negotiating with her. i was skeptical about that. those over health care were so painfully drawn out that they cost them not just time but political capital. so you know, what you have here is someone who they need for her discipline and her organization. on the other hand there is some tactical advantage. this is a president who liked to say on the left they want the do this big government stuff. on the right you're on your own. pelosi and boehner are for the president to say i'm in the middle and i can pull these sides together. >> eugene robinson, i would like to share something that oft governor said. he said i would like to see the president say i will not borrow money from china in order to give a tax break to people who make over a million dollars a year and thereby explode the national debt and say it over
and over, then added like on fox news, might we hear something similar from the president? >> well, i suppose we might. i mean that's one of the kind of ways this issue could be finessed. it's got too be finessed some kind of way, you could say make at million dollars and not $250,000 or whatever. i'm not sure that's the road the president is going down. i think in the end, you know, there's a lot of sentiment on the left of the democratic party to hold tough on the line that the president drew, which was $250,000. in the final analysis, the president -- a deal has to be made, and if i had to put money down on it, it would be that they are going to make a deal. maybe with some sort of finesse about a million dollars as opposed to $250,000. maybe they can get that. >> richard, tomorrow is the gm
offering and perhaps you heard that the stock has been valued on the high end at $33. meaning the high end of expectation. you talk in the book about the poor communications, how it sort of went wrong from the campaign, they were adept to inept. prognosticate for me. what's the spin tomorrow about gm? how is this portrayed by this white house? >> axelrod told me that people confused a lot of these bailouts, t.a.r.p. and recovery and the auto bailout and almost into one. something they have to do over the next couple of years is explain how actually the taxpayer is coming out ahead on a number of these thing, on wall street and everything else. it's not easy to do that when the economy is still sluggish but as the economy picks up, as the numbers become clear there is a story, they can tell and will have to tell because this debate isn't going to go anywhere unless they do something about it. that means telling their own story. >> eugene, no comment about the headlines without reference to governor palin.
barbara walters interviewed her. check out what she said about challenging president obama. >> i'm looking at the lay of the land now and trying to figure that out if it's a good thing for the country, for the discourse, for my family, if it's a good thing. >> if you ran for president, could you beat barack obama? >> i believe so. >> eugene, what else could she say, right? >> what else could she say. i'm hearing a distant chorus from the chous saying run, sarah run. as you know, her negatives are high for someone who wants to be elected president. so that would be very, very difficult for her. and i think it would be good political move for the white house if that was the match-up. >> you say that. my hunch is someone else
cheering this on might sound counter intuitive is governor mitt romney. putting her in the race guarantee as split of whatever vote is not going in his direction. it comes back to this issue of who is able to be nominated versus who is able to be elected and they are not necessarily one in the same. richard, you want a piece of that? >> look i, covered the dean campaign in ids brief and glorious life in 2004. it strikes me that there is a similar dynamic. grass roots, untested candidate who can go off the rails and when democrats look to the numbers they decided they have to go for a more electable guy. whether it's mitch daniels or mitt romney or the other governors out there, running against an incumbent president, the bar is that much higher. i will say i agree with sarah palin for the discourse on cable tv she would be wonderful. >> my business depends on it. thank you. appreciate your time. up next we heard lots about the use of full body scanners but what's the alternative? we've got the man, the head of the tsa joins us next.
this is "hardball" only on msnbc. ♪ [ male announcer ] there are billions of people in the world. ♪ but only one dad. ♪ show him how much you care with gillette fusion proglide. ♪ [ male announcer ] there are billions of people in the world. ♪ but only one dad. ♪ show him how much you care with gillette fusion proglide. ♪
the democrats lost in a slew of swing states in this year's midterms. the electoral map for president obama may not be as narrow as some feared. obama was the first in a generation to carry the state in 2008 and looks to be in decent shape against the top challenger ares. he would beat mitt romney, top mike huckabee by the 49-44. and if republicans run sarah palin for newt gingrich president obama's lead widens to 11. he would beat palin 51-40, gingrich 52-41. "hardball" back after this.
>> we're back. as the fight over new airport screening continues some pilots are speaking out against them including captain chesley "sully" sullenberger. here he is today. >> airline pilots do have concerns about the screening procedures. first, they are not an effective efficient use of our limited resources. i think we need to do a better job of taking a risk-based approach. i think since airline pilots are already the last line of defense in defending the cockpit against those who might use it for ill and since we're very trusted partners in this important security process, i think we need to be treated as such. and we already have the means if the tsa would choose to use it and implement it nationwide to
quickly identify and verify each pilot's identity, to verify their current employment status, and that would go a long way to be much more effective at meeting a possible threat. we also have concerns about the small additional radiation exposure. >> a new cbs news poll shows that the public supports the procedures, four out of five say airports should use full body x-ray machines. john pistole is the administrator of the transportation security administration. respond if you would to captain sullenberger. >> thank you, michael. i spoke with sully yesterday, we had a good discussion, and it's interesting that when i started in this position july 1 of this year, i brought a risk-based intelligence-driven approach to how we go about our job of trying to provide the best possible security. so i agree with many of the things that sully mentioned. the question is what is the best way of implementing some of this risk-based approach. i hope to have announcement about a good way forward as it pertains to the pilots in the very near future.
>> i fear this is getting away from you on the basis of internet lore. i would love to break it down in a short time period and explain and separate some of the fact from fiction. give me the short version, what's the drill? i fly, i walk up, what's about to take place? >> so we have the advanced imaging technology in about 80 airports now. and if you go there and want to opt out of that machine you go through the walk-through metal detector and describe what we describe as a there patdown. you go through the walk-through metal detector and there is flow alarm, no alert, then there is no patdown. so that's the basic process. the best way people can prepare is make sure everything is out of their pockets, and that there's nothing in there that would show up on the advanced imaging technology machine. >> relative to the full body scan have you fully vetted the health earn concerns? >> the fall of 07 this has been
in process quite a while. accelerated after the 12/25 event and the non-metallic device, the fda, the national institute of standards technology and johns hopkins did independent assessments and all found that the radiation from these machines are well within the acceptable safety limits. >> i'm glad you referenced johns hopkins because mr. pistole, this morning on my radio program i had james babb, he wrote for "usa today," today he's one of those trying to organize a grass roots protest movement. and when i raised that subject with him, here's what james babb who runs the we won't fly organization said. i want you to respond. >> the study you mentioned from johns hopkins says you know, because of the large number of people doing this somebody's going to get cancer from it. if this is allowed to continue. >> wait. you're not saying the johns hopkins people said that. are you? >> yes, i am.
>> what's the story? >> as i understand that study, it talks about the probabilities, but it looks at the underlying issue how much radiation is a person exposed radiation is the person exposed to? and the analogy was about three minutes of flying at altitude. so let's say 30,000 feet. there have been other people who have done their assessment of the study who have come up with this idea that given the millions of air hours people are flying, there is a possibility out there at some point that somebody may, may -- and so many mays built in here, may have some additional exposure concerns. so i think i just have to go back to what the -- again, fta, and johns hopkins say about what is safe and acceptable, and that was their conclusions. >> here's another one i hear from radio callers, the muslim garb exception. you may not even know what i'm talking about. but if someone approaches a tsa check point and wearing a burka, what's the drill?
>> everybody goes through the same process. so whatever their ethnicity and religious beliefs, the bottom line, people are treated the same in terms of either going through the advance imaging technology if that's available or the walk through the metal detector. and if they alert, then they would have to have that alert resolved. and the best way of doing that is through a pat-down. >> no free rides, right? >> that's right. >> how invasive should a properly carried out pat-down actually be? you know you hear some of the horror stories. there's this kid out in california who is raising a beef. how invasive a process should it be? >> so the pat-down needs to be thorough enough to detect well-designed, well-concealed, non-metallic, especially, explosive devices such as we saw on 12/25, last christmas. so it needs to be thorough.
and this pat-down coupled with the technology is designed to identify and neutralize any possible threat in that regard. >> are you comfortable in saying that no way someone who subjects themselves to the full-body scan will ever have the image that's created broadcast, saved, put out on the internet, et cetera, et cetera. fill in the blank. >> yes, i am. because the machines that we have deployed at airports are -- are deployed in the way that has all those capabilities that you mentioned rendered inoperable. so we don't have the opportunity to -- to either store, transmit, do anything with those images. they are deleted as soon as the person is cleared. the next image comes up, and obviously we don't allow cameras, cell phones with cameras or anything in that screening room. and of course, we have the screener who sees the image. and again, it's an image. i've seen all these crazy things
out there about the photos and different things. it is an image, and with parts blurred and things. but the person who sees that image never sees the person, the security officer sees the person, never sees the image, and again, those images are deleted, and not retained in -- it's not possible to retain them. >> and finally, mr. pistole, sully sullenberger made reference to risk-based properties. to me risk-based means taking into consideration the commonalities of those who threaten the united states. i'm not going to use that dreaded "p" word because of all the connotations associated with it. are we taking into consideration as we seek to prevent an attack, the commonalities of those who wreak havoc on this country? >> we're trying to do everything possible informed by the latest intelligence to ensure the traveling public is safe. so if it is intelligence says there is a group of individuals or specific individual -- obviously, that's the best way to go. when we don't have that intelligence, then we try to do
a risk-based approach in saying what information do we know about the person? how can that help inform our judgments and our actions? but we are moving forward in a risk-based perspective. i think there's more to come on that. but the pilots that we are talking about, i think, is a first step again, in terms of how do we apply this risk-based approach? >> thank you so much for your time. i appreciate it. >> thank you, michael. why i'm no longer of use helping my fourth grader to do his math homework. you're watching "hardball" only on msnbc. ♪ we all do it. but you don't have to. thanks to secret flawless renewal... with odor-absorbing micro capsules that capture... odor and release a fresh scent. it's still working, so you can stop checking.
let me finish tonight with an update from the home front. i've apparently reached a point where i'm of no value when it comes to helping our youngest son with his homework. sooner or later it happens to all of us. the problem in our case, our youngest son is only in the fourth grade. here's the brain-teaser he came home with last week. mrs. rosen buys a table and six chairs for $1,233, the table costs $750 more than each chair, how much does she pay for the six chairs? easy, i thought. take the total amount that mrs. roden spent the $1,233, subtract the $750, divide by six, right? wrong, a couple minutes later i had the iphone out, i still couldn't figure it out. soon i was daydreaming about details we didn't know.
what kind of a table was it? where did she buy it? is it clean? what do those chairs look like? and what exactly do we know about her? i was within an inch of pulling out a slide role. it's been 30 years since i've had to do any math without a texas instrument next to me. i was still embarrassed, but not too embarrassed to mention it on the radio the following day. and sure enough, plenty of callers couldn't figure out the answer either. it took an aerospace engineer, literally a rocket scientist named josh to correctly lay out and solve my fourth grade son's extra credit problem. the equation he told me looks like this. 6 x, the number of chairs multiplied by the cost, plus x, plus the table, which is $750 more than one chair equals $1,233, the total cost. here's what it looks like, you work it out, you get $414 for the six chairs, or $69 per chair.